Angle between the orientation of a moving object and its velocity

You are playing games, you are trying to argue from a false premise, there are no mirrors that move perpendicular to themselves in the scenario, so , please stop this dishonest game. Or go play it by yourself.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

You are playing games, there are no mirrors that move perpendicular to themselves in the scenario, so , please stop this dishonest game. Or go play it by yourself.

Click to expand...

I'm not playing any dishonest game, I am simply trying to establish a common ground in what appears to be the root of our disagreement. I have simply done the same thing that Pete has stated he will do, only I have gone about it in a different fashion.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

These are yes no questions, and as soon as I get a straight answer to them, we can proceed with proofs of anything.

Click to expand...

None of the situations in your pictures occur in the case being discussed, so , at this point I suggest that you continue this game all by yourself. If you decide to produce a case that occurs in the scenario, please PM me and we'll talk.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

None of the situations in your pictures occur in the case being discussed, so , at this point I suggest that you continue this game all by yourself. If you decide to produce a case that occurs in the scenario, please PM me and we'll talk.

Click to expand...

And once again Tach weasles out of answering a straight forward yes or no question.

Look, I'm not asking you whether or not you think that they occur in your scenario. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't think that they are clear.

I get that.

We disagree on that point, we've established that, however answering this question is at the crux of our disagreement, but before we can get into discussing the relevance of the motion of the camera in the reference frame we must first establish whether or not A and B are equivalent.

I produced C and D to make the point that whether we rotate the mirror or the vector makes no material difference to the outcome of the question.

Now, before I illustrate why you were wrong to neglect the motion of the camera in your calculations, we must first establish whether A is equivalent to B, because if A is equivalent to B then proving that the camera has a component of motion that is perpendicular to the surface of the mirror, then by the equivalence principle, that satisfies Paulis criteria.

If you don't think that A and B are equivalent then I would appreciate it if you could demonstrate why they shouldn't be, because every thing that we have discussed so far in the last 24 hours suggests to me that they are.

Now, I have promissed you that I will be forth coming with the math in short order. I have demonstrated that I am capable of producing the math, and I have even demonstrated that I understand enough relativity to understand why the twin paradox isn't actually paradoxical.

Now, are you going to engage in this discussion in good faith, or are you going to keep weaseling and trolling?

Now, before you launch into another tirade about why you think I am wrong, take the time to understand this:
I am not, at this time, interested in discussing my proof with you. I am not interested, because until we can agree whether or not A and B are equivalent, there is no point in my discussing it further, because it must neccessarily, at some point invoke the equivalence of A and B.
If A and B are not equivalent, I desire to understand why they are not equivalent, and I do not wish to waste my time typing otu a proof that is based on a wrong assumption.

If we can agree that they are equivalent, the proof will be forthcoming in good time.

Now, the ball is in your court. Do you wish to engage in this discussion in the same good faith and good manners I have shown you? Or do you want to continue with these unfounded personal attacks.